Slashdot Mirror


Federal Facebook Probe Now Includes FBI, SEC: Report (apnews.com)

A federal probe into Facebook's sharing of user data with Cambridge Analytica now involves the FBI, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Justice Department, a report said. AP: Representatives from these agencies have joined the Federal Trade Commission in the inquiry, The Washington Post reported, citing five unnamed people familiar with the matter. The probe reportedly centers on what Facebook knew in 2015, when it learned that the political data-mining firm Cambridge Analytica had improperly accessed the personal data of tens of millions of Facebook users. Facebook didn't disclose the incident with the political firm, which later worked for the Trump campaign and other Republican candidates, until this March.

44 of 77 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Good. Burn them all by ausekilis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As much as I'd love to see a good witch burning, I think a more realistic expectation isn't fire or even jail time. It'll be a couple million dollar fine and a shameful finger wave.

    If and until fines become greater than profits for corporations bad behavior, this cycle of crap will continue.

  2. Too big by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

    The American way... let company do terrible things to people and get too big to fail, THEN investigate.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    1. Re:Too big by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I don't expect them to investigate pre-crime, but I do expect them to investigate before it is too late for anything to be done about it. You can't tell me Facebook has only been doing this since last month. Heck, most technical people knew this was the point of Facebook since the beginning. Where there is smoke there is fire, and now the firemen are getting there to a black smoking mess.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  3. Going to include the Obama campaign? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Keep in mind that Cambridge Analytica only "improperly accessed" the data based on Facebook's new rules, the old rules and Facebook's own API allowed them access to the data they acquired. There was no "illegal access" - this was data that Facebook happily gave the Obama campaign as well as just about any company that asked.

    There's no clear reason for the FBI to be involved other than continued butt-hurt over the "wrong" candidate winning the election. No one cared when Obama used the same trick to steal the election from Romney.

    1. Re:Going to include the Obama campaign? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So what you are trying to say is, that since the Democrats are shitbags, Republicans should get a free pass for being shitbags too?

      Guess what, they're both shitbags, one just has R written on and the other has a D written on it.

      The reason why this country is going to hell in a bucket is shit like this. Both sides just keep screaming at each other "BUT THEY DO IT TOO!"

      This is how Liberty dies.

    2. Re:Going to include the Obama campaign? by GregMmm · · Score: 1

      What Federal Privacy laws were broken? Didn't everyone agree to share there data?

    3. Re:Going to include the Obama campaign? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What federal privacy laws, exactly? The information shared was information Facebook was legally allowed to share. If it wasn't, then Obama is exactly as guilty as Cambridge Analytica and should be under investigation too, as his campaign pulled literally the same stunt that Trump's did. (And I'd be amazed if the same tools weren't handed over to the Clinton campaign as well.)

      But there are no such laws. You might think there should be, but there aren't. The data Facebook shared was legally shared. If it wasn't, then Obama (and likely Clinton) are just as guilty.

    4. Re:Going to include the Obama campaign? by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      You don't get to opt out of the law. If you agree to let someone kill you they are still guilty of murder (under the law).

    5. Re:Going to include the Obama campaign? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So what you are trying to say is, that since the Democrats are shitbags, Republicans should get a free pass for being shitbags too?

      Exactly the opposite: Democrats are getting a free pass to be shitbags while Republicans are being prosecuted for things people happily ignored Democrats doing.

      You're right, both sides are bad and both sides should be treated the same. But THEY ARE NOT. Just look at the way the media treats Obama versus Trump. Just look at the investigations against Trump for bogus charges while people ignore Clinton selling uranium to Russia or using Russian sources to "dig up dirt" on Trump.

      For whatever reason, Democrats are allowed to be shitbags while only Republicans get prosecuted for it. They're both shitbags and should both suffer the same consequences, but they don't.

    6. Re:Going to include the Obama campaign? by Train0987 · · Score: 2

      I'm not making a political statement either way. I'm simply explaining that if the FBI is involved then that means they are investigating whether federal law was violated. It may be as simple as lying to Congress or it may be more than that.

    7. Re:Going to include the Obama campaign? by will_die · · Score: 4, Informative

      See the link below for the issues.
      Part of the legal issues is that agreement, the link below, requiring that facebook perform actions which is being investigated to see if they broke.
      the issue with Cambridge Analytica is that they had access to people who had not given consent, so breaking the FTC agreement.
      What Obama's 2012 team was allowed to do by facebook was take data only from people who had consented (you logged into obama's website using your facebook account). However they were given access to data that facebook never gives to anyone else and is listed as user data that will not be distributed and was not the list of information that would be shared, so consent for some data not given. In addtion obama's team was allowed to suck that data directly from the facebook databases and then keep the data indefinitely. All of that is in violation of the FTC agreement.

      https://www.ftc.gov/news-event...

    8. Re:Going to include the Obama campaign? by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Except in Oregon (under certain circumstances -- assisted suicide)

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    9. Re:Going to include the Obama campaign? by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2

      In case anyone is wondering about the hypocrisy, read this article https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    10. Re:Going to include the Obama campaign? by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

      this was data that Facebook happily gave the Obama campaign as well as just about any company that asked. ...No one cared when Obama used the same trick to steal the election from Romney.

      The difference being what they used the data for. If you use the yellow pages to call people and tell them to vote for you guy, eh, fine. Annoying but not a crime. If you use the yellow pages to systematically murder people in a district to try and sway the vote, that's wrong.

      Trump and Russia used and Internet propaganda campaign of lies to sway voters. This is, subtly, different from a campaign PR campaign. Namely:

        - Is it clear who purchased the advertisement?

        - Is it clear that it IS an advertisement?

        - Does the advertisement lie to the viewer, and to what extent?

      Show me the propaganda from the Obama campaign, and I'll show you a pile of garbage out of Russia that's 10 times worse.

    11. Re:Going to include the Obama campaign? by will_die · · Score: 1

      Nope, the obama page would get the list of your friends. It would then target you, with that list and request that you click on a link so that a message could be sent to that friend. This is similar to all those games on faceback.
      Also Trump did not illegally access the data, he hired a company which exceed the people, they would normally have which then sold services to the Trump campaign which included that data.

  4. Re:Good. Burn them all by Train0987 · · Score: 1

    At minimum there's a good chance Zuckerberg is forced out over this.

  5. Re:Good. Burn them all by ole_timer · · Score: 1

    he still owns a lot of facebook stock

    --
    nothing to see here - move along
  6. Re:Good. Burn them all by ole_timer · · Score: 1

    the fines should be bigger than that...but maybe the lobbying will reduce them...

    --
    nothing to see here - move along
  7. Lock them up! Lock them up! Lock them up! by JoeyRox · · Score: 1, Troll

    And, lock them up!

    1. Re:Lock them up! Lock them up! Lock them up! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      2016 was a really bad year for democracy. We were caught out, we thought social media wasn't a big deal and didn't notice Russia interfering.

      We must fully investigate and learn everything we can about what happened. The chances of anyone significant going to jail are low and we aren't going to have a do-over now, but what is important is making sure it doesn't happen again. Not the same way, and not some different way with whatever new tech we come up with.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    2. Re:Lock them up! Lock them up! Lock them up! by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

      It was both good and bad for democracy.

      Consider this: A political outsider running on a populist platform managed to get elected over the established candidate that everyone thought was going to win. That's amazing. An upset. A sign that we actually live in a democracy. Because even if everyone can vote, but there's only the illusion of choice and the party leaders are going to pick whom they want to run, then it's not really a democracy. And for all the elections I've been around for, the victor was pretty much determined by who paid more for it. That's not a democracy, that's a plutocracy at best or a government full of corrupt official semi-employed by corporate interests at worst. But Trump only raised about half the money Hilary did. And he still won.

      I was feeling really cynical about the whole process but this one actually opened my eyes to the fact that the voters really DO have control over the outcome. Shocking I know. And HO BOY was that a shock. Seriously, I saw the numbers midway through and had to have a drink.

      Now... it's ALSO a bad day for democracy. It showcased how effective propaganda can be, in case anyone had forgotten that. It also showcased how ugly elections can get. It wasn't NEARLY as bad as, say, the elections down in Mexico right now. The pile of corpses simply doesn't stack up. But it was relatively ugly for the crazy primary, tone of violence, vitriol, and hacking someone's email isn't the sort of thing we want to become commonplace. And just the sheer volume of bold-faced lies. It wasn't a good election. Better than some of our own from the past, but pretty bad by recent standards.

      Buu ugliness aside, completely ignoring the... security holes of democracy and how easily swayed the voting masses are. This was a bad day for democracy. Because the guy that got elected is almost* universally reviled. The opposition really hates him. More so than the other side hated a black guy, surprisingly. The media hates him. His own party's leadership isn't a huge fan, but they're willing to use him. Some even came out against him. The best thing about our nation is it's ability to change. To balance out things and fix what's wrong. After this sort of populist movement got someone SO BAD into the white house, we're not going to see ANY hope of another populist movement again for a long time.

      "but what is important is making sure it doesn't happen again."

      Yep. Exactly. That'll mean more "super-candidates", more party control over who gets onto primary ballots, and the general populace will be more leery of political outsiders. It's kind of a damn shame, because if the DNC didn't have such a strong hold over the party then maybe Bernie might have had a real shot. Trump vs Bernie would have been an interesting election.

      But hey, other than the EPA and FCC being castrated, maybe things won't be so bad. He's legitimately made good strides with N.Korea. Let's hope, right?

      *almost, but not all. There is a very significant number of people that legitimately like his leadership style. A bully, in charge, bold, "masculine", authoritative. I'm pretty sure Mussolini wrote about this. "He'll make the trains run on time". One downside of democracy is that a lot of people are assholes.

  8. Re:Good. Burn them all by avandesande · · Score: 1

    Recently some kid recorded his principal with a cellphone and is facing felony charges. Why should facebook be exempt from prosecution?

    --
    love is just extroverted narcissism
  9. Re:Good. Burn them all by gmgravytrain · · Score: 2

    Facebook is too profitable for anyone to mess with. Zuckerberg is a very powerful and influential individual so he's practically untouchable. I'm sure a lot of people in high places own Facebook stock and they'll stop anyone or any faction from affecting Facebook's high profitability. High profits will always come before things like personal privacy protection. Zuckerberg is a winner at life and business. Nothing can stop him now. He's the second or third richest man in America so he's become some sort of a sacred icon to Wall Street. He's definitely Teflon-coated, so nothing bad can stick to him.

  10. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... this was data that Facebook happily gave the Obama campaign as well as just about any company that asked.

    No they didn't. That is a lie started by Conservative Troll media (Fox News, Hannity, Rush, and all the idiots on political talk radio - and that makes you a rube.) I didn't start seeing ANYTHING from the Obama campaign until I signed up.

    Now, what CA did was target people unsolicited with BS ads about immigrants , "America is for Americans only", stuff about infrastructure, and other issues that their data suggested - and targeted ads accordingly.

    Trump then used that data to customize his speeches in those areas based upon data.

    For example, they found that people were concerned about infrastructure and that is when Trump said that he was going to spend a Trillion dollars on roads, bridges and highways.

    And why when he was in Potatohoe he railed about keeping them illegal immigrants out - even those people have no illegal immigrant problem.

    And everyone seems to think facebook and CA are the problem when it's really our stupid electorate (mostly the conservatives) who lack critical thinking skills and are too lazy to really learn about the issues.

    Because let's face it, Trump won on complete horseshit.

    1. Re:Bullshit by Train0987 · · Score: 2, Informative

      That is nonsense. 63 million people weren't persuaded to vote against Clinton by Facebook ads. That is, at best, wishful thinking. At worst it's willful self-delusion and cognitive dissonance.

    2. Re:Bullshit by snapsnap · · Score: 1

      > Trump then used that data to customize his speeches Not speeches, only one speech. They decided against using the data because they didn't trust it and didn't trust that they would continue to have access to it.

    3. Re:Bullshit by Train0987 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They cling to this Russians! nonsense as a defense mechanism against facing the reality that their worldview has been rejected. There must be some higher reason to explain how a circus clown was able to defeat them when the entire deck stacked in their favor.

    4. Re:Bullshit by Train0987 · · Score: 1

      It's more likely that you're the Russian spy sent here to make Democrats look foolish.

    5. Re:Bullshit by burningcpu · · Score: 1

      He did not say the Facebook ads influenced the minds of voters, such that they would vote for Trump. Stop being obtuse.

  11. SEC only has civil jurisdiction by Train0987 · · Score: 1

    The SEC only has civil jurisdiction, not criminal. They only have the authority to sue, levy fines and prohibit future involvement by bad actors. Only the DOJ can prosecute criminally for securities fraud.

  12. The slow-motion Zuckerbook train-wreck by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    That's what we're witnessing, people, make no mistake about it. The downfall of Zuckerbook is a foregone conclusion, it's on trajectory already, and nothing is going to stop it now; Zuckerbook has committed it's sins, and now they'll have to pay the price: being dismantled, piece by piece, and nothing of value was lost. Do yourselves a favor and flee the sinking Zuckership now.

  13. Re:Good. Burn them all by cayenne8 · · Score: 2
    Well, the thing is....even if they find ALL of this is true, likely I"m thinking the quite little they can charge FB with and punish them for....

    I mean, while no one likes it, under current US law, there's really NOTHING that is codified as being illegal about it, otherwise we'd be stringing up tons of companies over this type thing.

    The only good thing that could come out of this, is for the US to pass at least basic privacy laws for our citizens and let it be know that WE own our own data, have rights to see/view, and opt IN if we want it shared or used for us, and can also have it removed/deleted if we wish.

    I'm not much of one for most EU type laws, but that last one on data privacy could be used for a model here, if anything useful is to come out of this FB data outrage.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  14. Re:Good. Burn them all by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    I don't believe anyone should be untouchable; nor do I believe anyone IS untouchable if the crime is popular enough with those prosecuting.

    One can dream of a scenario where Hillary, Trump and Zuckerberg all share a cell together.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  15. A bit confused by forkfail · · Score: 2

    OK, I'm honestly a bit confused here.

    Not making a political statement, but hasn't Facebook been selling data in violation of their own policies for the last few years?

    I realize how one could potentially perceive this as unfair play during the election, but by Facebook's own admission, it doesn't really seem to be much different that the rest of the data sharing going on.

    --
    Check your premises.
  16. Re:Keep pretending Trump isn't prison bound, faggo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Given that the Russians are not about one party winning, but about divisiveness, I have to think that most posts like this these days are themselves coming out of Russian Troll Farms.

  17. Re: Good. Burn them all by BellyJelly · · Score: 1

    "One can dream of a scenario where Hillary, Trump and Zuckerberg all share a cell together" Which one still be the bitch?

  18. Re: Good. Burn them all by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

    "One can dream of a scenario where Hillary, Trump and Zuckerberg all share a cell together"

    Which one still be the bitch?

    Zuckerberg is probably the most feminine, with the most delicate features of the three- so probably him.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  19. Re:Didn't users opt-in for this? by forkfail · · Score: 1

    The problem with wanting to put your political enemies up against the wall with a cigarette and a blindfold is that there's a good chance that you yourself will either be joining them or that it'll be they who are the ones making up the firing squad.

    --
    Check your premises.
  20. Re:Didn't users opt-in for this? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    The problem with wanting to put your political enemies up against the wall with a cigarette and a blindfold is that there's a good chance that you yourself will either be joining them or that it'll be they who are the ones making up the firing squad.

    Obviously it was a joke- I wouldn't really suggest anyone be executed for voting for Trump, or helping him get elected.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  21. Re:Good. Burn them all by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Zuck is a cuck installed by the NSA to helm the public rollout of their pet project.

    At best, he believes his own bullshit. Realistically, he knows he's a useless piece of shit and he gets his marching orders from behind the scenes.

  22. Re:Didn't users opt-in for this? by forkfail · · Score: 2

    Apologies. Made the mistake of looking at Twitter earlier today, and my ability to distinguish between hyperbole and actionable rage is damaged at the moment.

    --
    Check your premises.
  23. Re:Good. Burn them all by easyTree · · Score: 1

    Because they have enough cash to be innocent?

  24. Re:Include the Obama campaign? Probably not. by easyTree · · Score: 1

    when you put a semi-incompetent, embarrassing, corrupt, anti-American, evil person in charge.

    Everyone knows that these less-than-ideal traits still make the holder way better than your standard candidate.

  25. Re:Include the Obama campaign? Probably not. by easyTree · · Score: 1

    They slam into a schoolbus full of retarded 4 year old children, each of who happens to be hugging a puppy at the time of the collision. Some of the debris slams into some other cars too. The upshot is that 40 retarded 4 year olds, 40 puppies, a nun, Tom Hanks, Elon Musk & Jeff Bezos, Jennifer Lawrence, Rihanna, Beyonce and some other people like that [thetoptens.com], the newly-grown clones of Albert Einstein and Charles Darwin, Chesley Sullenberger and oh, let's just throw in a bunch more random childen, all slowly burn to death while a hundred million Americans watch them die on TV and hear them screaming in agony. Oh yeah, and the original copy of the Constitution just happened to be getting transported at that moment and was also destroyed in the fire, along with a bunch of American flags and bibles and the master recordings of every Lynyrd Skynyrd album. And it happened under a bridge and caused structural damage that will cost $30 million to repair

    Nothing a band-aid can't fix.